9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed returns for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The returns were filed in the status of individual disclosing his income from all sources. Subsequently, he filed two separate returns. In one return he showed income in the status of an individual. In the other return he showed income as the karta of a Hindu undivided family. In the first return his remuneration for services rendered to Lala Manmohan Das Trust was shown as his personal income; in the other return income of the Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta was shown. The Income-tax Officer did not pass any order on the return filed by him in the status of a Hindu undivided family. But, he held that the entire income was assessable in his hands in the status of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs made by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. As they are relevant for deciding the question in issue, we have admitted them by a separate order dated April 28, 1972. We will refer to those documents later. At the outset the reference was listed before a Division Bench. It seems that the Division Bench felt some doubt about the correctness of the decision in Raghunath Prasad Tandon v. Commissioner of Income-tax ; so it has referred the reference to a larger Bench. In Raghunath Prasad Tandon, Shri Justice Desai said : " In the instant case the Income-tax Officer had virtually rejected the return of the assessee and it was not pending when he issued the notices under section 34(1). So long as a return is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of individual. Even for the assessment year under consideration the assessee filed the return of income showing status as individual and showing therein the income from property, share in various firms, remuneration and beneficiary allowance in the trust and from director's fees. However, subsequently, fresh returns were filed, one showing the status as individual in which the income from remuneration from Lala Manmohan Das Trust and director's fees were shown and the other declaring the status as Hindu undivided family in which the incomes from property and from shares in various firms were shown. The assessee was required to prove the status." The Income-tax Officer did not accept the assessee's contention that certain incomes were re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Had he not filed that return in the first instance, it could have plausibly been argued that in order to find out all incomes the Income-tax Officer must have referred to the subsequent return filed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. In that event it could have plausibly been argued that the Income-tax Officer had disposed of the return filed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. But, as already indicated, on account of the initial single return it was not necessary for the Income-tax Officer to look into the return filed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. Accordingly, it cannot be implied that he had disposed of the assessee's return filed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. It is not reasonably plain from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
